I'm not really sure how much of a difference that would make in the "world."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It would stop.....adultery. Maybe teenage pregnancy. But those aren't even huge issues when it comes to global problems.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, and adultery isn't a big deal at all in a lot of countries. "Remaining faithful" is extremely subjective, seeing as in a lot of cultures people can have multiple spouses.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It would probably lower the spread of AIDS in Africa too.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It would lower the spreads of just about every STD. But I'm going to assume people can still get divorced, so they wouldn't disappear completely like I saw someone say. If Divorce wouldn't be allowed then we're setting ourselves back a few hundred years to when the Church controlled it and women were stranded in abusive relationships where the men had all the power legally.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It would stop like 4 problems. Teenage pregnancy, adultery, cheating, divorce because of cheating. These aren't even big problems when you look at starvation, dwindling resources, pollution, etc. They're pretty petty problems and the world wouldn't be that much better without them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And there would be less/no STDs, less single mothers, and people would be more committed to their partners (brain releases less and less oxytocin--the bonding chemical-- the more people someone screws)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Would divorce be illegal? Cause that would put us back when the church forbid it and stranded women in abusive relationships they can't escape.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There would still be STDs, as they can be passed from parent to child.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not as many.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And abortion, at least a large portion of it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's debatable as to whether or not it's a problem.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What about the people that don't want to get married? Also an honest and thorough understanding of sex, contraceptives, and stds would solve the same problems.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Perhaps. The thing about sex is that it's the deepest form of communication and togetherness that we have as human beings. Sexual intercourse brings about something called a soul tie, which brings those engaged in the act closer together. Its no wonder its said that the two shall become one flesh. And if those people aren't in a committed relationship, they run the risk of emotional pain. Not saying that married people don't divorce or go through emotional strain, but married people make a promise to stay together before each other and the world.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Two unmarried people could make the same commitment. And you're making the assumption that everyone is monogamous. What will make you happy won't necessarily make someone else happy. And everyone experiences emotional pain, not just couples. But even if two people are risking it, so what? Every relationship I've ever had I'm glad of. Good stuff went down along with some bad, and I wouldn't change that. Having said that, sex means different things to different people. Maybe you'll experience the soul tie you spoke of, and that's great. But sex doesn't have to be meaningless just because two people aren't married or in love. Sorry, but it sounds like you're projecting your ideals onto everyone else and that really doesn't work.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm guessing you have never had a fuck buddy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What if you never have sex until you're married, then find that you and your spouse are sexually incompatible? That's going to have a big effect on the marriage. Your hypothetical world is harder to achieve than you might think.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Define 'sexually incompatible', please.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's hard to define, but if you ever find out you're sexually incompatible with someone, you will definitely know.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

There are many ways to be sexually incompatible. For instance, if one partner's libido is much higher than the other partner's, it can cause a lot of problems. It's just as hard to have sex when you're not in the mood as it is NOT to have sex when you ARE in the mood. And then, if one partner has kinks he or she needs satisfied, and the other partner isn't willing to satisfy them, then once again, there is a problem.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think it's that easy. Plus, I sure as hell wouldn't be happy in that situation.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Why not?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't want to be with the same person my whole life. I like being with different women, sounds bad, I know.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't think the post is saying that this is what should happen, or even possible, but there would be a lot less problems.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

True story: This is how things were in China in the 1970's and 80's. Sometimes (let me repeat that-- SOMETIMES) when a husband first took his wife to bed, he wouldn't know which hole to use, or was so bad at sex that it caused the woman great physical pain. Then, of course, she would be disinclined to have sex. This led to an increase is spousal rape and domestic violence as a result of sexual frustration in the marriage. I'm sure there were other factors, like inadequate sex-ed classes. Although arguably, we also have that problem, given the 'abstinence only' education programs that are being used in some areas. Edit: Preemptively, I am not arguing the opposite, that people go around and sleep with everyone they meet. But a having safe sexual encounters with a few partners before marriage is entirely reasonable.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What about gay marriage? Two people who love and are committed to each other who aren't allowed to marry in some contries.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't there would be a LOT less problems in the world, and I think any problems that would arise could be solved in better ways, like sex ed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago